Outstanding Questions on Trump’s Deranged Deportation Flights
Last week, President Trump disregarded the ruling of a federal judge by ordering the sudden deportation of migrants from countries including Vietnam, Cuba and Mexico to South Sudan – a country on the brink of civil war and to which none of the individuals have connections. The judge, who had previously instructed the Trump Administration to give migrants 15 days to challenge their deportation to countries besides their country of origin, found that the administration had violated his order. The eight migrant detainees were temporarily diverted to a U.S. military base in Djibouti while their cases are resolved in court. Yesterday, Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the case, making it easier for his administration to deport people to countries that are not their homeland.
This is just the latest in a series of stories about Donald Trump’s bizarre and cruel efforts to ship migrants to locations thousands of miles from their countries of origin. Earlier this month, it was reported that the administration was in negotiations with both Libya and Rwanda to accept deportees from third countries. And the administration is reportedly in discussions with other countries across Africa about accepting deportees from the United States.
In addition to the obvious constitutional concerns, Donald Trump’s apparent obsession with shipping migrants to countries he deems unsuitable raises some other serious questions. Here are just a few of ours:
Why are we shipping migrants thousands of miles away from any home they’ve ever known? Migrants from southeast Asia and Central America are being loaded onto planes and transported – against their will – to countries where they don’t even speak the language. Is there any reason for this, beyond cruelty? Wouldn’t it be more sensible to send them back to their countries of origin – or at least a country on the same continent?
How can we send deportees to Libya and South Sudan if our own State Department warns against traveling there? The United States of America does not have a functioning embassy in Libya because the country has been deemed too unsafe for our diplomatic personnel. Americans have been advised to avoid traveling to South Sudan at all costs because of instability and the risk of civil war. How can we justify sending migrants to countries that are this dangerous and unstable?
How much is this costing the American taxpayers? The Trump Administration paid for U.S. military planes to fly thousands of miles, with stops in several different countries, to get just eight migrants off our hands – to say nothing of the legal costs associated with such an unprecedented and unnecessary measure. On top of that, the administration is reportedly sending El Salvador millions of dollars to accept a few dozen migrants. What is the cost to the taxpayers for sending these individuals thousands of miles away from their homes?
Has the United States entirely abandoned its concerns about human rights? The State Department has worked hard to draw international attention to human rights abuses and dangerous prison conditions in South Sudan. But today, that same State Department is approving the deportation of migrants to a nation where it reports “prison conditions were harsh and life threatening. Overcrowding and inadequate medical care at times resulted in illness and death. There were reports of abuse by prison guards.” Relatedly, the Trump Administration is reportedly in talks to deport migrants to Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, and Benin – all nations the United States itself has said possess concerning human rights records. The Trump Administration is abandoning America’s values.
What concessions is America making to achieve Trump’s political goals? It’s an open secret: if you upset Donald Trump, he’ll try to harm you. If you do him a political favor, he’ll give you something in exchange, regardless of whether it’s in America’s best interest. Just look at South Sudan. Earlier this year, the East African nation incurred the wrath of Trump after refusing to accept a flight of migrants. In retaliation, the U.S. immediately revoked visas for all South Sudanese passport holders. South Sudan was quick to capitulate. In response, the administration showered them with rewards: visas were approved for visiting delegations, DHS announced it was extending TPS for another six months, and the U.S. voted at the UN Security Council to extend the UN mission in South Sudan. Need another example? Look at Lesotho, who scrambled to support Trump’s mass deportation efforts and grant Elon Musk’s Starlink an operating license in an effort to lessen a fifty percent tariff – tied for the highest in the world.
So, what else is Trump willing to give up to these nations behind closed doors? Is he willing to recognize one Libyan government over the other in exchange for accepting migrants? Are we going to look the other way as Rwanda invades and pillages its neighbor? Are we going to allow South Sudan’s president to continue to imprison and suppress his political opposition? In Donald Trump’s Washington, anything is possible.
Published: May 2025